It's been a couple of weeks since the last post as I haven't been doing any wargaming due to work commitments and a few other things. I have, however, been able to work on my WSS rules that were trialled in the last posting.
So the rules have been out with a couple of people for comment, and the feedback has been very helpful. I've also taken the radical step of reading some books on the subject. This has proved to be quite illuminating, as it seems my memory isn't quite what it was. It seems that my recollections of the research I did for the Seven Years War when I was a student has crossed over a bit with the WSS, and rather contaminated the knowledge pool.
So, a few revisions required. Nothing that requires me to change the core mechanism, which looks remarkably robust. I like games to have unifying mechanisms. I'm not a great fan of, for example, using dice for shooting, cards for melee and dominoes for movement.
The challenge is to produce a quick playing interesting game where lines of infantry blazing at one another doesn't become dull, and you can capture some of the key battlefield tactics. The way cavalry retires behind infantry and reforms at Blenheim is important, and most writers stress the way Marlborough, and also Eugene and Tallard, tried to produce an all arms battle.
All the time the need is to keep this clear and straight forward. I was hoping for two pages of A4, but I'm up to five. Some of that is the introductory stuff about unit basing and so on, and I tend to be generous with the white space and size of print to make them readable.
Some times it is complicated to make things simple.
Anyhow, they need to be put on one side for the moment, as they're not being used to Monday, when my board gaming buddy is coming over for a day of figure gaming. Before then we've got a multi-location telephone game of the Pueblo Crisis.
We've got the Soviet Union in Sheffield, China in Stirling, South Korea and the USA in London, and North Korea in Shedquarters.
We've tested the comms this afternoon and it's all looking good.
Which strangely enough, proved to be simpler than expected.
So the rules have been out with a couple of people for comment, and the feedback has been very helpful. I've also taken the radical step of reading some books on the subject. This has proved to be quite illuminating, as it seems my memory isn't quite what it was. It seems that my recollections of the research I did for the Seven Years War when I was a student has crossed over a bit with the WSS, and rather contaminated the knowledge pool.
So, a few revisions required. Nothing that requires me to change the core mechanism, which looks remarkably robust. I like games to have unifying mechanisms. I'm not a great fan of, for example, using dice for shooting, cards for melee and dominoes for movement.
The challenge is to produce a quick playing interesting game where lines of infantry blazing at one another doesn't become dull, and you can capture some of the key battlefield tactics. The way cavalry retires behind infantry and reforms at Blenheim is important, and most writers stress the way Marlborough, and also Eugene and Tallard, tried to produce an all arms battle.
All the time the need is to keep this clear and straight forward. I was hoping for two pages of A4, but I'm up to five. Some of that is the introductory stuff about unit basing and so on, and I tend to be generous with the white space and size of print to make them readable.
Some times it is complicated to make things simple.
Anyhow, they need to be put on one side for the moment, as they're not being used to Monday, when my board gaming buddy is coming over for a day of figure gaming. Before then we've got a multi-location telephone game of the Pueblo Crisis.
We've got the Soviet Union in Sheffield, China in Stirling, South Korea and the USA in London, and North Korea in Shedquarters.
We've tested the comms this afternoon and it's all looking good.
Which strangely enough, proved to be simpler than expected.
The telephone game sounds interesting. Hopefully we'll be able to prise a report out of you at some stage!
ReplyDeleteAs the saying goes "Just try and stop me".
DeleteTrebian
DeleteThe simplest rules are always the most difficult to write. Some annoying git will always be telling you that they need amplification or more examples!
Cheers
Andrew
Yes. Neil Thomas achieves it by ignoring ambiguity and just trusting people to be sensible.
DeleteSeriously, I think I have got a set of simple mechanisms, the complexity is in explaining how they work in all situations.